Biblical Essays
“THOU AND THY HOUSE”
Introduction
Nothing can be more truly beneficial for the soul than to be brought under the searching power of the Word of God – to have our treacherous hearts examined by its sure light, and all our ways tested by its holy precepts. “The law of the Lord is perfect.” It is God’s means of effectually dealing with His people, and accomplishing in them the purposes of His love.
Hence, if the soul be in a healthful moral condition, it will truthfully respond to the action of the Word; resulting in happy and blessed communion – increased nearness to God, and joy in Him through our Lord Jesus Christ. But if we cannot say with the apostle, “Our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world” (2 Cor. 1:12), we will feel its keen and sharp edge, its light penetrating into our dark worldly ways. It is a “discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart,” and whatever we have allowed or indulged in that is of “fleshly wisdom,” and not of “simplicity and godly sincerity,” will certainly meet its condemnation in that Word. On the other hand, the mistakes and errors of our course are to be corrected, and the soul of the saint maintained in happy fellowship with the living God by that Word. “By the word of thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer.” To have His own Word brought home and applied to our conscience, in the light and power of the Holy Spirit, is a great mercy from “the Father of Mercies.” When out of communion, it will certainly break down that in which we seek satisfaction but, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” the same Word reveals to us “the riches of His grace” – such not only builds up, but builds up “in Him.”
Under a deep sense of our shortcomings, truth may cover our faces with “shame and confusion”; but grace is the restorer of paths and of souls to walk in them. “If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” This is the only true position for a smitten conscience. We gain a victory over our sad failures, when, in full confession of our sins and shortcomings, we cast ourselves on God’s boundless grace, accepting the authority of His truth, and submitting ourselves to it. Every soul thus exercised, will certainly be led by the Spirit, “that other Comforter,” from the “word of God which is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword,” up to the “throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”
There we find the living Savior, in all the gracious activities of His priestly ministry, meeting for us all the claims of divine holiness and all the deep necessities of His erring people; maintaining our souls without spot or blemish, notwithstanding our failures, in the holy presence of God. May we never lose sight of the true grace of God, wherein we stand.
Self-judgment is our inward desire. The line of truth herein below presented led our souls into deep exercise before God. The more we worked on it, the more we came to feel that “Thou and thy house” sounded very much like “Thou art the man.” And we are – our hearts surely need stirring up on this deeply practical subject. We pray the following essay is fitted, and by the Lord’s grace, designed for this end.
That we are to bring our children up for the Lord is plainly taught: “But bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” To do this, we must daily walk before our children in the practical exhibition of His character, counting on the sympathies and grace of His heart: remembering that He says to us, “Without me ye can do nothing.”
It is also our duty, in due time, to teach children some useful occupation for “necessary uses.” “And let ours also learn to maintain good works [or, profess honest trades, margin], for necessary uses.” Compare Ephesians 6:4; Titus 3:14. These are the points that severely test our practical Christianity. If faith, the first and all-important duty, has not been fully discharged before it is needful to press the second, then trial must come in, and no one can tell how long we may have to endure it before the Lord Himself appears for our help.
May the “God of all grace” lead each of us to more fully know, and value more highly, our blessed privileges – to more faithfully accept our great responsibilities as His servants regarding our families.
“Thou and Thy House”
There are two houses occupying a prominent place on the page of inspiration – the house of God, and the house of God’s servant. God attaches immense importance to His house; and rightly so, because it is His – His truth, His honor, His character, His glory, all are involved in the character of His house. Hence, it is His desire that the impress of what He is should plainly appear on that which belongs to Him. If God has a house, it surely should be a godly house, a holy house, a spiritual house, an elevated house, a pure and heavenly house. It should be all this, not merely in abstract position and principle, but practically and characteristically. Its abstract position is founded on what God has made it, and where He has set it; but its practical character is founded on the actual walk of those who form its constituent parts here on earth.
While many of us may be prepared to enter into the truth and importance of all the principles connected with God’s house, probably few of us are disposed to give equal attention to those connected with the house of God’s servant. However, if one were asked the question, “What house stands next in order to the house of God?” the answer would undoubtedly be “The house of His servant.” But, since there is nothing like bringing the holy authority of God’s Word to bear on the conscience, we will quote a few passages of Scripture, showing in a clear and forcible point of view, God’s thoughts about the house of one connected with Him.
When the iniquity of the antediluvian world had risen to a head, and the end of all flesh had come before a righteous God, who was about to roll the heavy tide of judgment over the corrupted scene, these sweet words fell on Noah’s ear, “Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation” (Gen. 7:1). It will be said that Noah was a type of Christ – the righteous head of a saved family – saved in virtue of their association with him. All this is fully granted: but Noah’s typical character does not interfere with this principle: the house of every servant of God is, in virtue of its connection with him, brought into a position of privilege and consequent responsibility.1
This is a principle involving vast practical consequences, which we will herein seek to establish from the Word of God. Were we merely left to argue from analogy, the thesis might easily be proved; for it could never be supposed by any mind acquainted with the character and ways of God, that He would attach such unspeakable importance to His own house, and attach none, or almost none, to that of His servant. This would be utterly unlike God; and God must always act like Himself. But we are not left to analogy on this most important and deeply practical question; and the passage just quoted forms one of the first of a series of direct and positive proofs. In it we find those immensely significant words, “Thou and thy house,” inseparably linked together. God never contemplated revealing a salvation for Noah that was of no avail to his house.
The same ark that lay open to him lay open to them also. Was it because they had faith? No; but because he did, and they were connected with him. God gave him a blank check for himself and his family, and it devolved on him to fill it up by bringing them in along with him. This does not interfere with Noah’s typical character. We are looking at him typically; as well as personally. Nor can we, under any circumstances, separate a man from his house. The house of God is brought into blessing and responsibility because of its connection with Him; and the house of the servant of God is brought into blessing and responsibility because of its connection with him. This is the thesis of this essay.
The next passage occurs in the life of Abraham. “And the Lord said, Shall I hide from – Abraham that thing which I do? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgement; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him” (Gen. 18:17-19).
Here it is not a question of salvation, but of communion with the mind and purposes of God; and let the Christian parent note and solemnly ponder this fact: when God was seeking out a man to whom He could disclose His secret counsels, He selected one possessing the simple characteristic of “commanding his children and his household.”
To a tender conscience, this cannot fail to prove a pungent principle. If there is one point above another in which Christians have failed, it is in commanding their children and household. Looking at the entire record of God’s dealings with His house, we find them invariably characterized by the exercise of power on the principle of righteousness. God has firmly established and unflinchingly carried out His holy authority. It matters not what the outward aspect or character of His house may be, the essential principle of His dealing with it is immutable. “Thy testimonies are very sure, holiness becometh thy house, O Lord, for ever.” The servant must always take the Master as his model; and if God rules His house with power exercised in righteousness, so must we; for if in any particular of our conduct, we are different from Him, we must, in that particular, be wrong. This is plain.
But not only does God so rule His house: He likewise loves, approves of, and with His marked and honored confidence treats those who do the same. In the above passage, we find Him saying, “I cannot hide my purposes from Abraham.” Is it because of his personal grace or faith? No; but simply because “he will command his children and his household.” A man who knows how to command his house is worthy of God’s confidence. This is a stupendous truth, the edge of which should pierce the conscience of a Christian parent. However, many of us with an eye resting on Genesis 18:19, may well prostrate ourselves before the One who uttered and penned that word, and shamefully cry out, “Failure! Failure! Failure!” And why have so many of us failed to meet the solemn responsibility in reference to the due command of our households? There seems to be but one answer: because we have failed to realize the privilege conferred on those households, in virtue of their association with us. It is remarkable that our two earlier Scripture proofs should present the two grand divisions of our question – privilege and responsibility. In Noah's case, the word was, “Thou and thy house,” in the place of salvation. In Abraham’s case, it was “Thou and thy house,” in the place of moral government. The connection is both marked and beautiful, and the man who fails to appropriate the privilege will, in moral power, fail to answer the responsibility. God looks on a man’s house as part of himself, and in the smallest degree, whether in principle or practice, he cannot disregard the connection without suffering serious damage – marring the testimony.
The question for a Christian parent’s conscience is, “Am I counting on God for my house, and ruling my house for God?” A solemn question, to be feared, yet few in this age feel its magnitude and power. Perhaps at this point, one may feel disposed to demand more Scripture proof than has yet been adduced, further proving our warrant for counting on God for our houses. Therefore, we offer one from the history of Jacob: “And God said to Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel.” This would seem to have been addressed to Jacob personally; but he never thought of disconnecting himself from his family, either as to privilege or responsibility. Thus, it is immediately added: “Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments; and let us arise, and go up to Bethel” (Gen. 35:1-3). Here we see that a call to Jacob put Jacob’s house under responsibility. He was called to go up to God’s house, and immediately he questioned whether his own house was in a fit condition to respond to such a call.
We now turn to the opening chapters of Exodus, where one of Pharaoh’s four objections to the full deliverance and separation of Israel had specific reference to “the little ones.” “And Moses and Aaron were brought again unto Pharaoh; and he said unto them, Go, serve the Lord your God; but who are they that shall go? And Moses said, We will go with our young, and with our old, with our sons, and with our daughters, with our flocks, and with our herds will we go; for we must hold a feast unto the Lord” (Ex. 10:8, 9).
The reason why they should take with them the little ones was because they were going to hold a feast unto the Lord. Nature might say, “What can these little creatures know about a feast unto the Lord? Are we not afraid of making them formalists?” The reply of Moses is simple and decisive, “we will go with our young...for we must hold a feast unto the Lord.” They had no idea of seeking one thing for themselves, and another for their children. They did not dream of Canaan for themselves and Egypt for their children. How could they taste the manna of the wilderness, or the old corn of the land, while their children were feeding on the leeks, onions, and garlic of Egypt? No; Moses and Aaron understood no such acting. They felt that God’s call to them was also a call to their little ones; and were it not fully carried out they would no sooner have gone forth out of Egypt by one road than their children would have drawn them back by another. Satan was well aware that such would not be the case; hence, the reason for the objection appears, “Not so, go now, ye that are men.” This is the very thing that too many Christians are doing (or rather attempting to do) in this present age. They profess to go forth themselves to serve the Lord, but their little ones are in Egypt. They profess to have taken “three days’ journey into the wilderness;” in other words, they profess to have left the world, to be dead to it, and risen with Christ, possessors of a heavenly life, heirs and expectants of a heavenly glory; but they leave their little ones behind, in the hands of Pharaoh, or rather of Satan.2 They have given up the world for themselves, but they cannot do so for their children. Hence, on the Lord’s Day, we take our position as strangers and pilgrims; hymns are sung, prayers uttered, and principles taught, which bespeak a people far advanced in the heavenly life; and in actual experience, just on the borders of Canaan (in spirit, of course, they are already there). But on Monday morning, too often every act, every habit, every pursuit, every object, contradicts all this. The little ones are trained for the world. In the truest and strictest sense of the word, the scope, aim, object, and character of their education is worldly. Moses and Aaron would not have understood such acting; and neither should any morally honest heart, or upright mind. We should have no other principle, portion, or prospect, for our children, but what we have for ourselves; nor should we train them with a view to any other. If Christ and heavenly glory are sufficient for us, they are likewise sufficient for them; but then the proof that they are truly sufficient for us, should be unequivocal. The tone of a Christian parent’s character should be such that it does not offer even a shadow of doubt regarding the soul’s real deep-seated purpose and object.
But what will our children say to us, if we tell them that we are earnestly seeking Christ and heaven for then while, at the same time, we are educating them for the world? Which will they believe; which will exert the more powerful practical influence on their hearts and lives – our words, or our acts? Let conscience honestly reply; with a reply emanating from its deepest depths, unanswerably demonstrating that the question is understood in all its pungency and power. We believe the time has come for plain dealing with one another’s conscience. It must be apparent to every prayerful and attentive observer of present day Christianity, that it wears a most sickly aspect; that the tone is miserably low; and, in a word, that there must be something radically wrong. It is rarely thought of as to testimony for the Son of God. Personal salvation seems to form the highest object with the majority of Christians, as if we were left here to be saved; and not, as saved ones, to glorify Christ.
We affectionately suggest the question whether much of the failure in practical testimony for Christ is not rightly traceable to neglect of the principle involved in the expression, “Thou and thy house.” We think it has much to do with it. One thing is certain; as a result of leaving our little ones in Egypt, a quantity of worldliness, confusion, and moral evil has crept in among us. Some who over the years seemed to be firmly grounded, taking a prominent place in testimony and service, lamentably went back into the world, not having power to keep their own heads above water, much less to help others. All this utters a warning voice for Christian parents rearing families – “Beware of leaving your little ones in Egypt.”
Thinking about his household, many a heart-broken father is left to weep and groan over his fatal mistake. In an evil hour and under a gross delusion, he left them in Egypt3 and now, in real faithfulness and earnest affection, when he ventures to drop a word into the ear of those who have grown up around him, they meet it with a deaf ear, and an indifferent heart, while they cling with vigor and decision to the Egypt in which he faithlessly and inconsistently left them. This is a stern fact, the statement of which may send a pang to many hearts; but though it wounds some, the truth must be told in order that it may prove a salutary warning to others. But we now proceed with the proofs.
In Numbers, “the little ones” are again introduced. We have just seen that the real purpose of a soul in communion with God was to go up with the little ones out of Egypt. They must be brought forth from thence at all cost; but neither faith nor faithfulness will rest here. We must not only count on God to bring them up out of Egypt, but also to bring them on into Canaan. Here Israel signally failed. After the spies returned, , on hearing their discouraging report, the congregation gave utterance to these fatal accents, “Wherefore hath the Lord brought us Unto this land, to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children should be a prey? Were it not better for us to return into Egypt?” (Num. 14). This was terrible. In reality, it was verifying Pharaoh’s wily prediction in reference to these very little ones, “Look to it now, for evil is before you.” Unbelief always justifies Satan, and makes God a liar, while faith always justifies God, and proves Satan a liar. Just as it is invariably true that according to our faith so shall it be unto us; so we find, on the other hand, that unbelief reaps as it sows. “As truly as I live, saith the Lord, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you. Your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me, doubtless ye shall not come into the land concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun. But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised. But as for you, your carcasses, they shall fall in the wilderness” (vv. 28-32).
Regarding their little ones, “They limited the Holy One of Israel.” This was a grievous sin, and it has been recorded for our admonition. Pertaining to the mode of dealing with children in this age, the Christian parent’s heart too often reasons within itself, instead of simply taking God’s ground. It may be said, “We cannot make Christians of our children.” But this is not the real question. We are not called to “make” anything of them. This work is reserved only for God; but if He says, “Bring your little ones with you,” will we refuse? No Christian parent can make a child accept Christianity4; but if God says, “I look on your house as part of yourself, and, in blessing you, I bless it,” will we disbelieve His mighty power, and refuse this blessing, because we cannot impart reality? God forbid. Yea, rather, with unfeigned joy let us rejoice that God has blessed us with a blessing so divinely rich and full that it extends not only to use, but also to all who belong to us; and, seeing that grace has given us the blessing, let faith take it up and appropriate it.
But, let us remember that the way to prove our entrance into the blessing is by fulfilling the responsibility. To say that we are counting on God to bring our children to Canaan, and yet, all the while, educating them for Egypt, is a deadly delusion. Our conduct proves our profession to be a lie, and we should not wonder if in the righteous dealings of God, we are allowed to be filled with the fruit of our own doings. Conduct will always prove the reality of our convictions; and, in this as in everything else, the Word of the Lord is solemnly true, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine.” We often want to know the doctrine before we do the will and the consequence is we are left in profound ignorance. To do the will of God in reference to our children is to treat them as He does, by regarding them as part of ourselves and training them accordingly. It is not merely by hoping they may ultimately prove to be the children of God, but by regarding them as those who are already brought into a place of privilege, and dealing with them on this ground in reference to everything. According to the thoughts and actions of many parents, it would seem as though they regarded their children in the light of heathens, who had no present interest in Christ, or relationship to God at all. This is grievously falling short of the divine mark. Nor is this a question, as it is too often made, of infant or adult baptism. No; it is simply and entirely a question of faith in the power and extent of that peculiarly gracious word, “Thou and thy house.”
Throughout the book of Deuteronomy, again and again the children of Israel are instructed to set the commandments, the statutes, the judgments, and precepts of the law before their little ones; and these same little ones are contemplated as enquiring into the nature and object of various ordinances and institutions. Those seeking deeper insight into these can easily run through the various passages.
We now pass on to that truly memorable resolution of Joshua, “Choose you this day whom ye will serve...but as for me and my houses we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15). Observe, “Me and my house.” He felt it was not sufficient that he himself should be personally pure from all contact with the defilements and abominations of idolatry; he also had to look to the moral character and practical condition of his house. Though Joshua was not to worship idols, yet, if his children did so, would he be guiltless? No; the testimony of truth would have been as effectually marred by the idolatry of Joshua’s house as by the idolatry of Joshua himself; and judgment would have been executed accordingly. It is important to see this distinctly. The opening of the first book of Samuel affords a solemn demonstration of this truth: “And the Lord said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle. In that day l will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end. For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; Because his son made themselves vile and he restrained them not” (1 Sam. 3:11-13).
Here we see that no matter what the personal character of the servant of God may be, if he fail in the due regulation of his house, God will not hold him guiltless. Eli should have restrained his sons. It was his privilege, as it is ours, to be able to count on the specific power of God in the subjugation of every element in his house that was calculated to mar the testimony; but he did not do this, and, hence, his terrible end was that he broke his neck about the house of God, because he had not broken his heart about his own house. Had he waited on God about his willful sons; had he acted faithfully; had he discharged the holy responsibilities devolving on him, the house of God would never have been desecrated, and the Ark of God would not have been taken. In other words, had he treated his house as part of himself, and made it what it ought to be, he would not have called down on himself the heavy judgment of Him whose principle it is never to separate the words, “Thou and thy house.”
But, how many parents have since trodden in Eli’s footsteps? Through an utterly false concept pertaining to the basis and character of parental relationship, from infancy to boyhood and from boyhood to manhood, they allowed their children to follow the unrestrained indulgence of self – of human will. Not having faith to take divine ground themselves, such parents have failed in moral power, unable to take even the human ground of making their children respect and obey them, ending in a fearful picture of lawless extravagance and wild confusion. In the management of his house, the highest object for the servant of God to set before his children is the testimony therein afforded to the honor of Him to whose house he himself belongs. This is truly the proper ground of action. We must not seek to have our children in order because it would be an annoyance and inconvenience to us to have them otherwise, but because the honor of God is concerned in the godly order of the households of all those who form constituent parts of His house.
However, here it may be objected that, up to this point, we have been breathing only the atmosphere of Old Testament Scripture, and the principles and proofs have been only thence deduced. So, on the contrary, one may conclude that God’s principle of action now is grace according to election, and this leads to the calling out of a man, irrespective of all domestic ties and relationships, so that we may find a godly, devoted, heavenly minded saint at the head of an ungodly, irregular, worldly family. In opposition to this, we maintain that the principles of God’s moral government are eternal, and, therefore, whether developed in one age or another, they must be the same. He cannot, at one time, teach that a man and his house are one, and commend him for ruling it properly, and, at another time, teach that they are not one, but permit him to rule his house as he pleases. This is simply not possible.
God’s approval or disapproval of things flows out of what He is in Himself; and in this matter in particular, because God rules His own house according to what He is Himself, He commands His servants to rule their houses on the same principle. Has the dispensation of grace or of Christianity come in to upset this lovely moral order? God forbid! No, if anything it has rather added new traits of beauty thereto. Was the house of a Jew looked at as a part of himself, and shall the house of a Christian be different? No; to apply grace to the misrule and demoralization prevailing in the houses of so many Christians in this age would be a sad abuse, and an anomalous application of that heavenly Word. Is it grace to allow the will to ride rampant? Is it grace to have all the passions, tempers, whims, and appetites of a corrupt nature indulged? Let us not call it grace, lest our souls should lose the real meaning of the word. Call it by its proper names – a monstrous abuse – a denial of God, not only as the Ruler of His own house, but as the Moral Administrator of the universe – a flagrant contradiction of all the precepts of inspiration on this deeply-important subject.
But let us turn to the New Testament and see if we can find in its sacred pages ample proof of our thesis. In this grand section of His book, does the Holy Spirit exclude a man’s house from the privileges and responsibilities attached to it in the Old Testament? We will plainly see that He does no such thing. Let us have the proofs. In Christ’s commission to His Apostles, we find these words, “And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into an house, salute it. And if the house [not merely the master] be worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you again” (Matt. 10:11-13).
Again, “And Jesus said unto Zacchaeus, This day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:9, 10). So in the case of Cornelius: “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts 11:13, 14). So also to the jailer at Philippi: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house” (Acts 16:31). Then we have the practical result: “And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house” (v. 34). In the same chapter, Lydia says, “If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide” (v. 15). “The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus.” Why? Was it because of its actions toward him? No; but “because he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain” (2 Tim.1:16). “A bishop must be one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim 3:4).
In all these Scriptures, we find the same great truth maintained – when God visits a man with blessings and responsibilities, He visits His house with the same. We may range through the entire canon of inspiration, and see this practical principle maintained throughout. It is worthy of God to teach His children this. But, sad to say, in this age we have grievously failed in this very thing. In these last times, as serious a blow as in anything else has been given to the testimony to God’s Son by our failure in this. True, there have been varied forms of evil – pride, vanity, worldliness, carnality, mixed motives, unhallowed traffic in unfelt truth, attempts to minister out of the presence of God, ungodly display of mere fleshly or intellectual energy, a making use of the precious Word of God as a pedestal on which to show off ourselves, miserable figuring before men, the basest assumption of position and affectation of gift, a dishonest putting forth of principles of which our own consciences had never duly felt the sharp edge, a holding up before others scales in which we had never weighed ourselves in the presence of God, lamentable deficiency in a well-adjusted conscience, which would have led us to see the manifest inconsistency between the principles professed and the practices adopted.
In all these things, as well as in many others, there has been the deepest and most marked failure – failure that has grieved that Holy Spirit of God whereby we profess to be sealed, and which has brought dishonor on that holy name by which we are called. The thought of this should put us in the place of sackcloth and ashes, the place of shame and confusion of face, the place of humiliation and confession – put us there, not merely for a passing moment, a day or a week, but until God Himself take us out of it. Alas brethren, we attend meetings for prayer and humiliation, and no sooner do we rise from our knees, than by the detestable levity of our spirit and deportment we prove how little we have entered into the truth and reality of our position and state before God. This will never do; we never reach the deep and far-spread root of our disease. The furrows of conscience must be laid open as deeply as the ploughshare of divine truth can lay them – there and there alone can the seeds of divine truth be sown. God has His implement for ploughing and sowing at the same moment, and that implement is truth. But, then, to the action of this truth we must present “an honest and good heart,” a tender conscience, and an upright mind. If truth acts on us in this way, what will it reveal? What is our condition? What aspect do we present in the midst of that sphere in which the Master has commanded us to “occupy till he come.” The answer to these enquiries cannot be gathered from the pages of books, papers, tracts, periodicals, etc.; for truly it is much easier to scribble truth on paper, than to imprint it on the conscience, and exhibit it in the ten thousand details and varied relationships of actual life. Therefore, these writings are not exactly the thing – even they, if examined with a calm, chastened, matured, and spiritual judgment, beneath the searching eye of a righteous God, would be found to contain much crude speculation, much unintelligible and profitless matter, if not much positive unsoundness, calling for profound sorrow and humiliation of heart before our God.
But, if our writings are not the thing, what shall we say of our public meetings – meetings for worship, meetings for prayer, and meetings for general edification? What of these? Where is their power, unction, freshness, and elevated tone? Is it not well known and painfully felt by many that with few exceptions, the meetings are dull, flat, heavy, and unprofitable? Why is this? The promise of Christ remains true. “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Now, where His presence is realized, there must be power; but He will not vouchsafe His presence unless our hearts are true to Him as the specific object of our assembly. If we have any lower object than Him before us, we cannot truly say that we are gathered in His name, and as a consequence, His presence will not be realized. How many there of us attend meetings without having Christ as our direct and primary object? Some go to hear sermons in order that they may be edified. With such, edification, and not Christ, is the object to which they are gathered. It will not do to say it is Christ and edification, for we cannot possibly have two objects before the mind at the same time; hence, if the object be edification, we are not gathered in the name of Christ, and, therefore, we cannot have that clear, distinct sense of His presence which Matthew 18:20 warrants. There may be many pious emotions and aspirations, much religious feeling, much intellectual interest in, and occupation about, the letter of Scripture, or points of truth; but all these may exist without the slightest realization of Christ’s holy and elevating presence.
Some present themselves in the assembly with hearts filled with thoughts about something they are going to do or say. They have a chapter to read, a hymn to lead, some remarks to make, or they intend to pray, and they are watching for a convenient opportunity to push themselves forward and carry out their intention. With such, it is painfully manifest that Christ is not the object, but self and its miserable doings and sayings. Such persons do a vast deal to rob the assembly of its distinctive holiness, power, and elevation. With them it is not Christ presiding, but the flesh figuring, and this, too, under awful circumstances. Flesh may act at an public meeting, or on a political platform; but, at an assembly of saints, it should be as though it did not exist. We have no right to present ourselves before the Lord in the assembly of His people with our ready-made discourse, our pre-arranged chapter, or selected hymn. We should go there to sit in His presence and yield ourselves to His sovereign rule. In other words, we should go in His name; have Him alone as our object; forget all in comparison with Him. We are not saying that having Him as our object, we may not impart or receive edification; quite the reverse: no, it is only when we set Him before self, that we will truly do one or the other. The less is always included in the greater. If we have Christ, we will surely have edification; but if we seek the latter instead of the former – if we make it our object, we will lose both.
But further, too many attend Christian worship with unpurged consciences, unjudged hearts, and unmortified flesh. Prayerless and faithless, cold and barren, they take their seats on the benches, without any object. Mechanically they go, because it is customary, but they are not governed by any distinct object. To such, the assembly is merely a religious formality, and they themselves act as a drain on others. They are actually in the way – a positive hindrance to general blessing and freshness.
Thus, as we see, there are various causes conspiring to sap the springs of life and vigor in the public meetings, and various reasons for the generally low tone and enfeebled testimony among us. To get at the bottom of these, there should be a deep work of conscience. The enquiry, “Lord, is it I?” should come forth from many a heart. It is vain to hope for any permanent blessing or restoration until we are thoroughly brought down into the place of true contrition and self-judgment. If we are ever to start again on a course of testimony for Christ, we must start from His feet, having taken our place there in the genuine sense of what we are, and where we have failed and come short. Not one can throw stones at another. We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, and the testimony of God’s Son. According to our mode and measure, we have all contributed to the woefully death-like condition of spiritual things around us.
Nor is it a mere church question – a mere difference of judgment pertaining to points of truth, however important in themselves. No; the world, the flesh, and the devil are at the bottom of our present sorrowful condition and we are each called on, by every argument that the love of Christ can put before us, to individually judge ourselves – judge ourselves thoroughly in the presence of God; and we are convinced that when this process of judgment has gone on, we will find that one of the most fruitful sources of weakness and failure will be suggested by the expression, “Thou and thy house; or the Christian at home.” We can never form a correct judgment of a man from seeing him or hearing him in a meeting. He may seem to be a spiritual person, and teach beautiful and truthful things; but go home with him, and there we learn the true state of things. He may speak like an angel from heaven, but if his house be not ruled according to the mind of God, he will not be a real witness for Christ.
Under the term “house,” three things are included – the house itself, the children, and the servants. Whether taken together or separately, all these should bear the distinct stamp of God. The house of a man of God should be ruled for God, in His name and for His glory. The head of a Christian household is the representative of God. Whether as a father, or as a master, he is, to his household an expression of the power of God; and he is bound to walk in the intelligent recognition and practical development of this fact. It is on this principle he is to provide for and govern the whole. Hence, “If any provide not for his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” By neglecting the sphere over which God has set him, he proves his ignorance of, and unlikeness to, the One whom he is called to represent.
This is plain enough. If we want to know how we are to provide for and rule our homes, we have only to carefully study the way in which God provides for and rules His house. This is the true way to learn. Nor is it here a question pertaining to the actual conversion of the constituent parts of the household. Not at all; what we desire to press on Christian heads of houses is this: from one end to the other, the whole affair should distinctly wear the stamp of God’s presence and God’s authority – that there should be a clear acknowledgement of God on the part of every member. That everything should be so conducted as to elicit the confession, “God is here;” not that the head of the house may be praised for his moral influence and judicious management, but simply that God may be glorified. This is not too much to aim at; yea, we should never be satisfied with anything less. A Christian’s house should be a miniature representation of the house of God, not so much in the actual condition of individual members, as in the moral order and godly arrangement of the whole.
Some may shake their heads and say, “This is all fine, but where will you get it?” We only ask, “Does the Word of God teach Christian men to so rule their house? If so, woe be to us if we refuse or fail to do so.” That there has been the most grievous failure in the management of our houses, every honest conscience must admit; but nothing can be more shameful than for a man calmly and deliberately to sit down satisfied with a disordered condition of his house because he cannot attain to the standard God has set before him. All we have to do is follow the line Scripture has laid down, and the blessing must assuredly follow, for God cannot deny Himself. But if, in unbelief of heart, we say we cannot reach the blessing, of course we never will. Every field of blessing or privilege that God opens before us, demands an energy of faith to enter. Like Canaan of old, to the children of Israel; there it lay, but they had to go there, for the word was, “every place that thy foot shall tread upon.” Thus it is always. Faith takes possession of what God gives. We should aim at everything which tends to glorify Him who has made us all we are or ever shall be.
But what can be more dishonoring to God than to see the house of His servant the very reverse of what He would have it? And yet, were we to judge from what constantly meets our view, it would seem as if many Christians think their houses have nothing whatsoever to do with their testimony. It is humbling to meet with some who, as far as they are personally concerned, seem nice Christians, but who entirely fail in the management of their houses. They speak of separation from the world, but their houses present a distressingly worldly appearance. They speak of the world being crucified to them, and of their being crucified to the world, and yet the world is stamped on the face of their whole establishment. Such homes seem designed to minister to the lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, and the pride of life. But it may be said, descending to such particulars is taking low ground. The daughters of Zion might just as well have passed the same comment on the following solemn appeal: “In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, the chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, the rings, and nose jewels, the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, the glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the veils” (Is. 3:18-23).
This was descending to minute particulars. The same might be said of the following passage from Amos: “Woe to them that are at ease in Zion...that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall; that chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of music, like David” (Amos 6:1-5).
The Spirit of God can descend to particulars when the particulars are there to be descended to. But, it may be further objected, “We must furnish our houses according to our rank in life.” Wherever this objection is urged, it reveals the real ground of the objector’s soul. That ground is unquestionably the world. What does “our rank in life” mean, when applied to those who profess is to be dead? To talk of our rank in life, is to deny the very foundations of Christianity. If we have rank in life, then it follows that we must be alive as men in the flesh – men according to nature, and then the law has its full force against us, “For the law hath dominion over a man so long as he liveth.” Hence, this rank in life becomes a very serious matter.
But, let us ask, how did we get rank in life? Or, in what life is it? If it be in this life, then we are liars whenever we talk of being “crucified with Christ”; “dead with Christ”; “buried with Christ”; “risen with Christ”; “outside the camp with Christ”; “not in the flesh”; “not of the world that fadeth away.” All these are so many splendid lies to those possessing, or pretending to a rank in this life. This is the real truth of the matter; and we must allow the truth to reach and act on our consciences, that it may influence our lives. What, then, is the only life in which we have a rank? – The resurrection life of Christ. Redeeming love has given us a rank in this life, and truly we know that worldly furniture, costly array, ridiculous parade and retinue, have nothing to do with rank in this life. No; the circumstances that comport with rank in heavenly life are, holiness of character, purity of life, spiritual power, profound humility, separation from everything that directly savors of the flesh and the world. To furnish our persons and our houses with these things, would be furnishing them “according to our rank in life.” But in point of fact, this objection does bring out the true principle at the heart’s core. It has already been remarked that the house reveals the moral condition of the man; and this objection confirms that statement. People who talk, or even think, of rank in life, have, “in their hearts, turned back again into Egypt.” And what does God say will be the end of such? “I will carry you away beyond Babylon.” Yes, it is greatly to be feared, that the great millstone of Revelation 18 presents a true picture of the end of the sickly, spurious, hollow Christianity of the present day.
However, it may be further urged that Christianity affords no warrant for filthy and irregular houses. This is most true. We know few things more distressing and dishonoring, than to see the house of a Christian characterized by filth and confusion. Such things could never exist in connection with a truly spiritual or even a well-adjusted mind. One may set it down that there must be something radically wrong wherever such things exist. Here, in an especial manner, the house of God presents itself before us as a blessed model. Over the door of that house may be seen inscribed this wholesome motto, “Let all things be done decently, and in order;” and all who love God and His house will desire to carry out this precept at home.
The next point suggested by the expression, “Thou and thy house,” is the management of our children. This is a sore and deeply-humbling point to many of us, because it discloses a fearful amount of failure. The condition of the children tends, more than anything, to bring out the condition of the parent. The real measure of our surrender to the world, and our subjugation to nature, will constantly be shown in our thoughts about and treatment of children. One professes to have personally given up the world; but then children are involved. Has the world been given up for them as well? Some may say, “How can I? They are in nature, and must have the world.” Here again the true moral condition of the heart is revealed. The world is really not given up, and children are made an excuse for again grasping what was professed to have been given up, but which the heart retained all the while. Are our children not part of ourselves? Yes; a part. Well, then, if we profess to have relinquished the world for ourselves, and yet seek it for them, what is it but the anomaly of a man half in Egypt and half in Canaan? Actually, such a person is really in Egypt. Here is where we have to judge ourselves. Our children tell a tale. The music master is surely not an agent the Spirit of God would select to help our children along, nor do they, by any means, comport with that high-toned Nazariteship to which we are called. These things prove that Christ is not the chosen and amply sufficient portion of our souls. Speaking of his home, a Christian father said, “What is sufficient for me, is sufficient for those who are part of me. And shall I be so base as to train my children for the devil and the world? Shall I minister to and pamper that in them which I profess to mortify in myself?” It is a grievous mistake, and we will find it so. If our children are in Egypt, we are there, too. If our children savor Babylon, we savor it, too: If our children belong to a corrupt worldly religious system, we belong to it ourselves, in principle. “Thou and thy house” are one; God has made them one; and “what he has joined together, let no man put asunder.”
This is a solemn and searching truth, in the light of which we may clearly see the evil of urging children along a path on which we profess to have forever turned our backs, as believing firmly that it terminates in hell fire. We profess to count the world’s literature, its honors, riches, distinctions, pleasures, all “dung and dross,” yet these very things, that we have declared to be only hindrances to us in our Christian course, and which, as such, we have professed to cast aside, we are diligently setting before our children as things perfectly essential to their progress. In so doing, we entirely forget that things which act as clogs to us, cannot possibly act as helps to our children.5 It were infinitely better to throw off the mask, and plainly declare that we have not given up the world at all; and nothing ever made this thoroughly manifest but our children. In many cases, it is well known that the children of Christians are the wildest and most ungodly in the neighborhood. Should this be so? Would God accept a testimony at the hand of those? Would it be thus if, in our homes, we were walking faithfully before God? These enquiries must be answered in the negative. If only we get the principle of “Thou and thy house” firmly fixed in our conscience, and intelligently placed into the mind, we will see it to be our place to count on God, and cry to Him, just as much for the testimony of our house as for our own testimony. In reality we cannot separate them. We may attempt it, but it is vain. How often has one felt a pang at hearing such words as these, “Such a one is a very dear, godly, devoted brother; but, oh! he has the boldest and wildest children in the neighborhood, and his house is a sad mess of misrule and confusion.” What in the judgment of God, is the testimony of such a one worth? Little indeed. He may be saved; but is salvation all we want? Is there no testimony to be given? And if there is, what is it? And where is it to be seen? Is it confined to the benches of a meeting place, or is it to be seen in the midst of a man's house? The heart can answer.
But one may urge that children will crave a little worldly enjoyment, so we must indulge them. We cannot put old heads on young shoulders. We reply, our own hearts often crave a little of the world likewise. Shall we indulge their craving or judge it? Judge it, of course. Then let us do the same in reference to our children's craving. If we find our children going after the world, let us immediately judge and chasten ourselves before God, crying to Him to enable us to put it down, so the testimony may not suffer. But we cannot help but believe that if the parent’s heart is, from its center to its circumference, purged of the world’s principles and lusts it will exert a mighty influence on his whole house. This is what makes this entire question one of vast magnitude and practical weight. Is our house a just criterion by which to judge our real condition? We believe the whole teaching of Scripture is in favor of an affirmative. This makes the matter peculiarly solemn. How are we walking before our family? Is our course and character so unequivocal that all can see that our one supreme object is Christ?
This we feel to be a startling inquiry; yet it is one that we are bound to follow up. What in many cases has called into existence awful profanity, disposition to scoff at sacred things, utter distaste for the Scriptures, and for meetings where the Scriptures are brought forward, skeptical and infidel spirit, so sadly apparent in so many children of Christian parents? Will anyone undertake to say that in the judgment of God the parents have nothing to do with this? May not much of this be justly traced to the sad incongruity between the professed principles and the actual practices of the parents6? We think it may. Children are shrewd observers. They soon begin to discover what their parents are really about. They will gather this much more speedily and accurately from the doings of their parents, than from their praying or sayings; and, although the parents may teach that the world and its ways are bad, and though they may pray that their children may know the Lord, yet, because they are educating them for the world, and industriously seeking to push them on in it; grasping at and getting in by every opening and congratulating themselves when they have succeeded in settling them there, it necessarily follows that the children begin to say in their hearts, “The world is a good place after all, for my parents thank God for getting me a berth in it, and look on it as an opening of Providence. All that peculiar talk of theirs about being dead to the world, and being risen with Christ – the world being under judgment, and their being strangers and pilgrims therein – all this must be rank nonsense, or else Christians, so called, must be rank deceivers.” Will anyone say that such reasoning as this has not passed through the mind of many a Christian’s child? Can it really be doubted? Without doubt, the grace of God is sovereign, and often triumphs over our errors and failures. But, let us think of the testimony, and see that our houses are truly ordered for God and not for Satan.
But it may be said, “How are our children to get on? Surely they have to earn their bread.” Yes; God formed us for work. The fact that we have a pair of hands proves we are not to be idle. But we need not push our children back into that world we have left, in order to give them employment. The Most High God, the Possessor of heaven and earth, had one Son, His only begotten, the Heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds; He did not take up any of the learned professions, but was known as “the carpenter.” Has this no voice for us? Christ has gone up on high and taken His seat at God’s right hand. As thus risen, He is our Head, Representative, and Model; but He has left us an example that we should follow His steps. Are we following His steps when seeking to push our children into the very world that crucified Him? Surely not: we are adopting the opposite course; and the end will be accordingly. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Regarding our children, as we sow, so shall we also reap. If we sow to the flesh and the world, we cannot expect to reap otherwise. But, it should be understood that we are not suggesting that a Christian parent ought to place his child below the level on which the Lord has placed him. We do not believe a parent would be warranted in so doing. If a parent’s calling be a godly calling, it may also suit the child. True, all of us cannot be carpenters; yet in this age of progress one feels that where “onward and upward in the world” seems to be the great motto, there is a deep moral for the heart in the fact that the Son of God; the Creator and Sustainer of the universe; was known among men as “the carpenter.” It certainly teaches that Christians should not be found seeking “great material things" for their children.
However, it is not merely in reference to the object set forth in our children’s education that we have obviously failed and marred the testimony; but also in the matter of keeping them in general subjection to parental authority. On this point, there has been great deficiency among Christian parents. It is doubtful that anyone will argue with the fact that advancement of “one parent” families has greatly influenced the spirit of insubordination so prevalent in this present age. “Disobedient to parents” forms a trait in the apostasy of the last days; and we have helped its development by a false application of the principle of grace, and by not seeing that in the parental relationship there is involved a principle of power exercised in righteousness, without which our houses must prove to be scenes of lawlessness and wild confusion. Pampering an unsanctified will is not grace. We mourn over our own lack of a broken will, and yet we strengthen the will in our children. Such represents a weakness of parental authority, as well as ignorance of the way in which the servant of God should rule his house. To hear a parent say to a child, “Will you do so and so?” Simple as it may seem, this question tends to create or minister to the very thing we need to put down –exercising the child’s will. Therefore, instead of asking the child, “Will you do?” just tell him what he is to do, eliminating in his mind the idea of calling “parental authority” into question.7 The will of the parent should be supreme with a child, because the parent stands in the place of God. All power belongs to God, and He has invested His servant with power, both as a father and a master. Therefore, if the child or the servant resists this power, it is resistance of God. Thus, it becomes clear why the removal of a father through divorce is so very devastating to the home, as well as to the authority of God.
“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and His doctrine be not blasphemed.” Observe, it is “God and His doctrine.” Why? Because it is a question of power. The name of Christ and His doctrine would put the master and servant on a level, as members of one body. In Christ Jesus there is no distinction; but when we go abroad in the world, we encounter God’s moral government, which makes one a master and another a servant; and any infringement on that government will meet with certain judgment. It is of immense importance to have a clear understanding of the doctrine of God’s moral government. It would settle many a difficulty, and solve many a question. This government is carried on with a righteous decision that is peculiarly solemnizing. Looking through Scripture regarding this subject, we find that in every instance in which there has been error or failure, it has inevitably produced its own results. Adam took of the forbidden fruit, and he was instantly thrown out of the garden, into a world groaning beneath the curse and weight of his sin. Nor was he ever replaced in Paradise. True, grace came in and gave him a promise of a Deliverer; moreover, it clothed his naked shoulders. Nevertheless, his sin produced its own result. He made a false step, and he never recovered it. At the waters of Meribah, Moses uttered a hasty word and immediately a righteous God forbad his entrance into Canaan. Likewise, in his case grace came in and gave him something better; for it was much better to inspect the plains of Palestine in company with Jehovah, from the top of Pisgah, than to inhabit them in company with Israel. It was similiar in David’s case. He committed a sin, and the solemn denunciation was immediately issued, “The sword shall never depart from thy house.” In his case, too, grace abounded, and he enjoyed a more profound sense of grace as he ascended the side of Mount Olivet with bare feet and covered head, than he ever had enjoyed amid the splendors of a throne; nevertheless, his sin produced its own result. He made a false step, and he never recovered it.
Nor is the exemplification of this principle confined merely to Old Testament times. Look at the case of Barnabas. His seemingly amiable desire to have the company of his nephew Mark seems to result in losing his honorable place in the records of the Holy Spirit. He is never heard of afterwards, his place apparently taken by a more devoted heart.8 Hence, God’s moral government is a momentous truth. In other words, as surely as anyone does wrong, he will reap the fruit of it – believer or unbeliever, saint or sinner. Grace can and when confessed and judged will forgive the sin; but, because the principles of God’s moral government have been interfered with, the offender must be made to feel his mistake. One will surely feel the consequences of missing a step in the wheel of God’s principles. This is a solemn but especially wholesome truth, the action of which has been sadly clogged in our age by false notions about grace. God never allows His grace to interfere with His moral government. He could not do so, because it would produce confusion, and “God is not the author of confusion.”
It is here there has been so much failure in the management of our houses. We have forgotten the principle of righteous rule that God has set before us, and in the exercise of which He has given us an example. We must not confound the principle of God’s government with the aspect of His character9 – the two things are distinct. The former is righteousness, the latter is grace; but what we here desire to bring out is the fact that there is a principle of righteousness involved in the relationship of father and master, and if this principle does not receive its due place in the management of the family, there will certainly be confusion. If we see another’s child doing wrong, we have no divine authority to exercise righteous discipline towards him; but the moment we see our own child doing so, we are to put him under discipline because we are his father. Once again, it is evident why rampant divorce in this age is so devastating – a father’s influence removed from children, thus upsetting the moral government of Almighty God.
But it may be said, “The parental relationship is one of love.” True; it is founded in love: “Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed on us that we should be called the sons of God.” But, although the relationship is founded in love, it is exercised in righteousness, for “The time is come when judgement must begin at the house of God.” So also in Hebrews 12, we are taught that being genuine sons brings us under the righteous discipline of the Father’s hand. In John 17, too, the church is committed to the care of the Holy Father to be kept by Him through His own name.
In every case in which this great truth has been lost sight of by Christian parents, their houses have been thrown into confusion. They have not governed their children; and as a consequence, in process of time their children have governed them, for there will be government somewhere; and if those into whose hands God has put the reins do not hold them properly, they will fall into bad hands. Is there a more melancholy sight than to see parents governed by their children? In God’s sight, we believe it presents a fearful moral blot which will surely bring His judgment. A parent, who lets the reins of government drop from his hands or does not hold them steadily, has grievously failed in his high and holy position as the representative of God, and the depository of His power. We further believe that anyone so failing can never thoroughly regain his place, or be a proper witness for God in his day and generation. Yes; he may be a subject of grace; but a subject of grace and a witness for God are two widely different things. This accounts for the sorrowful condition of many brethren. They have utterly failed to govern their houses, and hence they have lost their true position and moral influence – their energies are paralyzed, their mouths closed, their testimony hushed; and if any such do lift the voice in some feeble way, the finger of scorn is instantly pointed at their families, and this can only send a blush to the cheek and a pang to the conscience.
People usually do not have a correct view of this matter, unable to trace the failure up to its legitimate source. Many are too eager to look on it as a natural and necessary thing that their children are to grow up willful and worldly. They say, “It is all very well while your children are young, but wait till they grow older, and you will see that you must let them go into the world.” To this comment we ask, “Is it the mind of God that the children of His servants must necessarily grow up willful and worldly?” We have never been able to believe such. Well, then, if it is not God’s mind that they should grow up in such a way; if He has graciously opened the same path to our house as He has opened to us; if He has permitted us to select the same portion for our children as we have, through His grace, selected for us; if, after all this, our children grow up willful and worldly, what are we to infer? Surely, that we have grievously sinned and failed in our parental relationship and responsibilities; that we have wronged our children and dishonored the Lord. Shall we make a general principle of this, and set it down that all the children of Christians must grow up as ours have? Shall we, in reference to their dear children, discourage young parents from taking God’s ground by setting before them our abominable failure, instead of encouraging them by setting before them God’s infallible faithfulness to all who seek Him in the way of His appointment? To act in this way would be to follow in the steps of the old prophet of Bethel, who, because he was in the midst of evil himself, sought to drag his brother in also, and had him slain by a lion for disobeying the Word of the Lord.
But the sum of the matter is this, the willfulness of our children reveals the willfulness of our own heart, and a righteous God is using them to chasten us, because we have not chastened ourselves. This is a peculiarly solemn view of the case, and one that calls for deep searching of heart. To save ourselves trouble, we have let things take their course in our families, and now our children have grown up around us to be thorns in our side, because we did not train them for God. This is the history of thousands. We should always bear in mind that our children, as well as ourselves, should be “set for the defence and confirmation of the gospel.” If we could only be led to regard our houses as a testimony for God, we are persuaded that it would produce an immense reformation in our mode of ruling them. We would then seek a high tone of moral order, not that we might be spared any trouble or vexation, but rather that the testimony might not suffer through any confusion in our families. But let us not forget that in order to subdue nature in our children we must subdue it in ourselves. We can never subdue nature by nature. It is only as we have crushed it in ourselves that we are in a position to crush it in our children. Further, there must be the clearest understanding and the fullest harmony between the father and mother. Their voice, their will, their authority, their influence, should be essentially one – one in the strictest sense of that word. Being themselves “no more twain, but one flesh,” they should always appear before their children in the beauty and power of that oneness. To accomplish this, they must wait on God together – they must be in His presence, opening up their hearts, and telling Him their need. Christians frequently injure one another in this respect. It sometimes happens that one partner truly desires to give up the world and subdue nature to an extent the other is not prepared, and this produces sad results. It sometimes leads to reserve, to shuffling, to management and generalship, to positive antagonism in the views and principles of husband and wife, so that they are not truly joined in the Lord. The effect of all this on the children as they grow up is pernicious beyond all conception; and the influence it exerts in deranging the entire house is incalculable. What the father commands the mother remits; what the father builds up the mother pulls down, and visa versa. Sometimes the father is represented as stern, severe, arbitrary, and exacting. The maternal influence acts outside, and independent of the paternal; sometimes it even sets it aside altogether, so that the father’s position becomes wretched in the extreme, and the whole family presents a demoralized and ungodly appearance.10 This is terrible. Children can never be properly trained under such circumstance; and as to testimony for Christ, the bare thought of it is monstrous. Wherever such a state of things prevails, there should be the deepest sorrow of heart before the Lord because of it. His mercy is exhaustless, and His tender compassions fail not; and surely we may hope that where there is true contrition and confession, God will graciously come in with healing and restoration. One thing is certain, we should not go on content to have things so; therefore, let the one who feels the sorrow of heart cry mightily to God, day and night – cry to Him on the ground of His own truth and name, which are blasphemed by such things; and, be assured, He will hear and answer.
But let all be viewed in the light of testimony for God’s Son. It is to further this we are left here on this earth. We are surely not left here merely to bring up families. We are left here to bring them up for God, with God, by God, and before God. To do all this, we must be in His presence. A Christian parent should take great care not to punish his children merely to gratify his whims and tempers. He is to represent God in the midst of his family. When properly understood, this will regulate everything. He is God’s steward, and to discharge the functions of his stewardship he must have frequent, yea, unbroken connection with his Master. He must constantly take himself to His feet in order to know what he is to do, and how he is to do it. This will make everything easy and happy. It is often the desire of one’s heart to get an abstract rule for this and that in the details of family arrangement. One may ask, “What sort of punishments; what sort of rewards; what sort of amusements; should a Christian parent adopt?” We believe that if the divine principle of government be carried out from the earliest date, actual punishment will rarely be called for; and as to rewards, it would be better to put them in the light of expressions of love and approval. A child must be unqualifiedly and unhesitatingly obedient – not to get a reward, which is apt to feed emulation, a fruit of the flesh; but because God would have him be so; and then, of course, it is quite allowable for the parent to express approval in the shape of some little present. As to amusement, if possible, let it always assume the character of some useful occupation. It is a bad thing to cherish the thought in the mind of a child that painted toys and gilded baubles minister pleasure. With very young children, we have constantly found that they derived more real, and certainly much more simple, pleasure from a piece of stick or paper, made out by themselves, than from the most expensive toy. Finally, in all things, whether punishment, reward, or amusement, let us keep the eye on Christ and earnestly seek subjugation of the flesh in every shape and form. In this way our houses will be a testimony for God and all who enter them be constrained to say, “God is here.”
We must now close. The Lord knows that we have not written to wound anyone. We feel the importance and deep solemnity of the points put forward herein, and, also, our own lack of ability to bring them out with sufficient distinctness and power. However, we look to God to make them influential, and where He works, the weakest agency will answer His end. To Him we now commend this essay, which we trust began, continued, and ended in His holy presence. If it should be used by God’s Spirit to produce a deeper sense of this failure in even one conscience, and in one heart a more earnest desire to meet the failure in God’s own way, then we will rejoice, and our effort will not have been in vain.
In His great grace, May God Almighty produce in the hearts of His beloved saints a more ardent purpose of soul to raise in this closing hour a fuller, brighter, more vigorous and decided testimony for Christ, so that before the shout of the archangel and the trump of God are heard in the air, there may be a people prepared to meet and welcome the heavenly Bridegroom.
Footnotes:
1 The work of the Holy Spirit in the regeneration of the children of Christian parents should never be denied. “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” This is as true of a Christian’s child as of everyone else. Grace is not hereditary. The sum of what we would press on Christian parents is that Scripture inseparably links a man with his house, and that a Christian parent is warranted in counting on God for his children, and responsible to train his children for God. Let anyone who denies this interpret Ephesians 6:4.
2 It will be said that there cannot be any analogy between the actual removal of people from one country to another, and the training of children. To that we reply that the analogy only applies in principle. It is evident that we cannot take our children to heaven in the sense in which the Israelites took theirs to Canaan. God alone can fit our children for heaven, by implanting in them the life of His own Son; and He alone can bring them to heaven, in His own time. But, although we can neither fit our children for, nor bring them to, heaven, nevertheless, by faith we can train them for it; and it is not merely our duty (a poor, cold, and unworthy expression) but our high and holy privilege to do so. Therefore, if the principle on which, and the object with which, we train our children are manifestly worldly, we do, virtually, and as far as in us lies, leave them in the world. On the other hand, if our principle and object are unequivocally heavenly, then, as far as in us lies, we do train them for heaven. This is all that is meant in this essay by leaving our children in Egypt or taking them to Canaan. We are responsible to train our children, though we cannot convert them; and God will assuredly bless the faithful training of those whom He has graciously given us.
3 There is, we should say, a serious error involved in a Christian parent committing the training of children to an unconverted person(s). It is natural that a child should look up to, and follow the example of, one who leads the training and management. What can a teacher make of a child, save what he is himself? Where can he lead him but to where he is himself? What principles can he instill save those that govern his own mind, and form the basis of his own character? Well, if we see a man governed by worldly principles – if, from his whole course and character, we plainly see that he is an unconverted person will we commit to him the training or instruction of our children, or the formation of their characters? It would be the height of folly and inconsistency to do so. A man who desired to make an oval-shaped bullet might as well cast the melted lead into a circular mould. The same principle applies to the reading of books. A book is decidedly a silent teacher and former of the mind and character; and if we are called to check out the character and principles of a living teacher, we are equally to check out those of a silent teacher. In reference to both books and teachers, we are convinced that we need to have our consciences stirred and instructed.
4 Many content themselves with the assurance that, at some time or other, their children will be converted. But this is not taking God’s ground with them now. If we have the assurance that they are within the range of God’s purpose, why do we not act on that assurance? If we are waiting to see certain evidences of conversion in them, before we act as Scripture directs, it is plain that we are looking at something besides God’s promise. This is not faith The Christian parent is privileged to look on his child now, as one to be trained for the Lord. He is bound to take this ground, in faith, and thus train Him, looking to God for the result, in the fullest assurance. If we wait to see fruits, this is not faith. Also, the question arises, what are our children now? They may be going about like idle, willful vagrants, bringing sad dishonor on the name and truth of Christ, and yet, all the while, we satisfy ourselves by saying, “I know they will be converted.” However, this will never do. Our children should be a testimony for God; and they can only be so by Christian parents taking God’s ground with them, and going on with Him about them.
5 The Christian parent may ask, “What am I to teach my child?” The answer is simple. Teach him only such things that will prove useful to him as a servant of Christ. Do not teach him anything that you know would prove a positive source of defilement or weakness to him; should he remain here. We are seldom at a loss to know what kind of food to give our children. We are tolerably well aware of what would prove nourishing and what would prove the reverse. Now, were the instincts of the new nature as true and as energetic in us, as those of the old, we are persuaded we should be at as little loss to decide in reference to what we should teach our children. In this, as in everything else, it may be said, “If thine eye he single, thy whole body shall be full of light.” If we have a deep sense of Christ’s glory, and a sincere desire to promote it, we will not be left in perplexity; but if our body is not “full of light,” we may be assured our “eye” is not “single.”
6 We remind the children of Christian parents that they are solemnly responsible to hearken to God’s Holy Word, irrespective of the conduct of their parents. God’s truth is not affected by the actions of men; and wherever one has heard the testimony of God’s love, in the death and resurrection of Christ, he is responsible for the use he makes thereof, even though he should not have seen its sacred influence and power exemplified in the life of his parents. We strongly offer these facts for the serious attention of children of Christian parents.
7 “And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath; but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). There is great danger of provoking our children to wrath by inordinate strictness and arbitrary treatment. We may constantly find ourselves seeking to mould and fashion our children according to our own tastes and peculiarities, rather than to “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” This is a very great mistake, and will surely produce failure and confusion. In the way of testimony for Christ, we gain nothing by molding and fashioning nature into the most exquisite shapes. Further, it does not require faith to train and cultivate nature; but it does require it to bring up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Some may say that the in the above passage, the apostle is speaking of converted children. But, there is nothing about conversion in the passage. It does not say, “Bring up your converted children,” etc. Were it thus, it would settle the whole question. But it simply says, “your children,” which surely must mean all our children. If we are to bring up all our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, when are we to commence? Are we to wait till they grow up and are almost men and women? Or, are we to begin where all right-minded people begin the work – at the beginning? During the most important part of their career, are we to allow them to run on in nature's folly and wildness without ever seeking to bring their consciences into the presence of God; without teaching them their solemn spiritual responsibilities? Are we to allow them to spend in utter thoughtlessness that period of life in which the elements of their future character are imparted? This would be the most refined cruelty. What should we say to a gardener who would allow the branches of his fruit-trees to assume all sorts of crooked and fantastic shapes before he thought of commencing a proper system of training? No doubt, we would pronounce him a fool; a madman. And yet such a person is wise in comparison with a parent who suspends the nurture and admonition of the Lord, until his children have made manifest progress in the nurture and admonition of the enemy. It may be said, “We must wait for evidences of conversion.” Faith never waits for evidences, but acts on God’s Word, and the evidences are sure to follow. It is always a proof of infidelity to wait for signs when God gives a command. If Israel had waited for a sign when God said, “Go forward,” it would have been plain disobedience; and if the man with the withered hand had waited for some evidence of strength when Christ commanded him to stretch forth his hand, he might have carried that withered hand to the grave. So is it with parents. If they wait for signs and evidences before they obey God’s Word in Ephesians 6:4, they are certainly not walking by faith, but by sight. Besides, if we are to begin at the beginning to train our children, we must evidently begin before they are capable of giving what we might regard as evidences of conversion. In this, as in everything else, our place is to obey, leaving the results with God. The moral condition of the soul may be tested by the command; but where there is the disposition to obey, the power to do so will surely accompany the command, and the fruits of obedience will follow, “in due season, if we faint not.”
8 There is a view that says that it was nature in Barnabas that led him to wish for the company of one who “departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.” It was amiable nature, but it was nature; and it triumphed, because he took Mark and sailed to Cyprus, his native country, where, in the freshness of his Christian course, he had sold his property in order to be a more unshackled follower of Him who had not where to lay His head. (See Acts 4:36-37) This is no uncommon case. Many set out with a surrender of heart and nature with their respective claims. The blossom on the tree of Christian profession looks fair, emitting a fragrant perfume; but: it is not followed by the rich and mellow fruit of autumn. The influences of earth and nature gather around the soul, and nip its beauteous blossoms, and all ends in barrenness and disappointment. This is sad, and is always attended with the worst moral effect on the testimony. It is not a question of ceasing to be a saved person. Barnabas was a saved person. The influences of Mark and Cyprus could not blot out his name from the Lamb’s book of life, but they did blot out His name from the records of testimony and service on earth. Is not this something to be lamented? Is there nothing to be deplored or dreaded, save the loss of personal salvation? Most despicable is the selfishness that can think so. For what purpose does the blessed God take so much pains and trouble in maintaining His people here? Is it that they may be saved? No; saved they are already, by the accomplished redemption of Christ. There is no middle step between justification and glory, for “whom he justified them he also glorified.” Therefore, why does God leave us here? He leaves us here so that we may be a testimony for Christ. Were it not for this, we might just as well be taken to heaven the moment of our conversion. May we have grace to understand this point, in all its fullness and practical power.
9 The epistles of Peter develop the doctrine of God's moral government. It is Peter who asks the question, “Who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?” Some may find a difficulty in reconciling this enquiry with Paul’s statement, “All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” It is needless for us to say that the two ideas are in perfect and beautiful harmony. The Lord Jesus Himself, who was the only perfect and unwavering follower of that which is good, who, from first to last, “went about doing good,” in the end found the cross, spear, and borrowed grave. The apostle Paul, who, beyond all other men kept close to the Great Original that was set before him, was called to drink an unusually large cup of privation and persecution. And to this moment, the more like Christ, the more devoted to Him anyone is, the more privation and persecution will be suffered. In true devotedness to Christ and love of souls, preaching Christ and taking a stand publicly in some parts of the world, one’s life would be in imminent danger. Do these facts interfere with Peter’s enquiry? No; the direct tendency of God’s moral government is to protect from injury all who are “followers of that which is good,” and to bring down punishment on all who are the reverse; but it never interferes with the higher path of ardent discipleship, or deprives anyone of the privilege and dignity of being as like Christ; “For unto you it is given, on behalf of Christ [to uper Cristou], not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him [uper autou] having the same conflict which ye saw in me, and now hear in me” (Phil. 1:29, 30; emphasis added). Here we are taught that to be allowed to suffer for Christ is an actual gift conferred on us, and on the ground of God’s moral government this in the midst of a scene in which it can be said, “Who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?” To recognize and be a subject of God’s government is one thing; to be a follower of a rejected and crucified Christ is quite another. Even in Peter’s epistle, which, as we have remarked, has as its special theme the doctrine of God’s government, we read, “But, if doing well and suffering for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable to God. For unto this were ye called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow his steps.” And again, “If any suffer as a Christian [from being morally like Christ], let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this matter” (emphasis added).
10 Nothing can be more melancholy than to hear a mother say to a child, “We must not let your father know anything about this.” Where such a course of reserve and double dealing is adopted there must be something radically wrong, and it is a moral impossibility that anything like godly order can prevail, or right discipline be carried out. Either the father must, by inordinate severity or unwarrantable strictness, be “provoking his children to wrath,” or the mother must be pampering the child’s will at the expense of the father’s character and authority. In either case, there is an effectual barrier to the testimony, and the children suffer grievous injury. Hence, Christian parents should see to it that they always appear before their children in the power of that unity which flows from their being perfectly joined together in the Lord. If, unhappily, any shade of difference should arise in reference to the details of domestic government, let it be made a matter of private conference, prayer, and self-judgment in the presence of God; but never let the subjects of government (the children) see such a manifest proof of moral weakness, for it will surely cause them to despise the government.
